S.Sreedharan v. B.Chandramohan Ias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.03.2022 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.SUNDAR Cont. Petition No.1842 of 2019
1. S.SREEDHARAN
2. S.JAYAKANTHAN
3. G.GOVINDARAJALU
4. A.MURTHI
5. R.CHANDRASEKARAN
6. D.DEVI
7. K.MARIYAMMAL 8.S.NALLU THEVAR 9.E.MURTHY 10.M.UDAYASOORIYAN 11.G.LALITHA 12.S.NEELAKANDAMOORTHY 13.P.KUMAR 14.D.RAMESH 15.A.V.PARTHASARATHY 16.K.CHINNA RAO 17.T.KANAKARAJ 18.S.MANI 19.G.SRINIVASAN 20.B.GAJENDRAN 21.M.RAJA 22.A.R.ARAVINDAKSHA MENON 23.S.AUGESTIN GOLAS 24.S.R.PONNAMMAL 25.A.MARLINE PRABHAKARAN 26.J.CLEMENT 27.K.MADHESWARAN 28.G.C.VENKATESAN
29.K.JAYALAKSHMI 30.J.SELVARAJ 31.G.LOGAPRIYAA 32.K.MANI 33.M.HEMA MALINI 34.K.SUBASH 35.T.KABALI 36.G.RAJALINGAM 37.R.GOVINDAN 38.S.VELAYUDAM 39.V.VIMALA 40.K.RAJALAKSHMI 41.A.L.SINDHA SAHUL HAMEED 42.A.EDWIN 43.P.DHAMODHARAN 44.M.RAMESH 45.M.MUNIAMMAL 46.P.SRINIVASAN 47.S.GOTHANDAPANI 48.D.ANANDHA SAINAM 49.A.BALA SUBRAMANIAM 50.P.HEMALATHA 51.M.SHENBAKA DEVI 52.R.NAGARAJAN 53.V.RADIKA 54.V.SARASWATHY 55.C.UDAYAKUMARI 56.M.LEELAVATHI 57.R.YAMUNA BAI 58.S.PANDIAN 59.K.S.RAMARAJ 60.B.LEELAVATHY 61.P.AROCKIASAMY 62.V.R.MURUGESAN 63.M.KALAVATHY 64.C.KUPPAN 65.K.DHASHANA MOORTHY 66.R.V.BALACHANDRAN 67.A.PARIMALA 68.M.ELLAPPAN
69.M.DHANAM 70.K.MUTHU RAMAN 71.B.VENKATESAN 72.S.R.RANGANATHAN 73.T.RAJENDRAN 74.S.RAVI 75.R.SAMPATH 76.M.SATHISH KUMAR 77.M.VEERARAGHAVAN 78.K.VENKATESH 79.R.SAMPATH 80.A.THIRUSILUVAI 81.ANDREW SILLET 82.M.SEKAR 83.A.V.LINGAM 84.S.POORICHAND 85.INDIRA RAVI 86.S.UDAYAKUMAR 87.S.DEVI 88.M.MURUGAN 89.P.MOORTHY 90.D.BALA SUBRAMANIAN 91.G.SIVAKUMAR 92.M.THANGAVENI 93.P.SHANMUGAM 94.B.MATHIAZHAN 95.V.BALAKRISHNAN 96.A.AKBAR SHERIFF 97.K.DEVARAJ 98.P.RAJENDRAN 99.R.AGAKHAN 100.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN 101.M.THARA 102.S.LAKSHMI 103.V.RAJA 104.K.SOUNDARAJU 105.K.SHANMUGA PRIYA 106.G.MUTHUSWAMY 107.C.PARTHASARATHY 108.T.SUDHAKAR
109.T.S.MAHALAKSHMI 110.C.HASEENA BEGUM 111.M.SANTHOSH KUMAR 112.G.DAMAYANTHI 113.G.SIVAKUMAR 114.R.PONNAMMAL 115.M.A.JAGANATHAN 116.S.SHANMUGAM 117.M.VASANTHA 118.R.NALAMEENA 119.K.ASHOK 120.B.RENUKADEVI 121.B.KANNAN 122.G.RAJESWARI 123.K.BALASUBRAMANIAN 124.V.DHANDAYUTHA PANI 125.S.B.MAHESHWARAN 126.G.PARTHIBAN 127.G.KASTHURI 128.B.VASUDEVAN 129.A.SHANTHI 130.I.NOVANAVAGIVAN 131.S.R.A.JUSTIN 132.ROSEMARY EMMANUEL 133.C.DHARMALINGAM 134.S.KANTHAMANI 135.A.ZERINA 136.S.I.JAYARAJ 137.C.CHELLAPPAN 138.F.JAMES 139.S.MURUGAN 140.HABEEB HUNISA 141.M.L.A.SUNDARARAJAN 142.T.THANGARAJ 143.M.MUNIRATHINAM 144.P.C.MANI 145.S.SIVASHANMUGAM 146.G.BALAKRISHNAN 147.K.K.MOORTHY 148.S.SRINIVASAN
149.R.RANGARAGU 150.K.MANIKANDAN 151.S.IYAPPAN 152.L.MANI 153.M.SELVARAJ 154.S.KUMAR 155.R.SENTHAMIL SELVI 156.S.SENTHIL KUMAR 157.SUDHAKASALINGAM 158.M.SUDHA 159.S.RAJALAKSHMI 160.V.LAKSHMI 161.D.REKHA 162.K.LAKSHMI BAI 163.S.SAKTHIVELAN 164.R.MANIMEGALAI 165.S.SHANMUGAM 166.S.ANGAMMAL 167.R.SELVARAJ 168.V.SOUNTHARAJAN 169.INDIRA ARAVIND 170.M.PADMAVARADHAN 171.R.RAMESH 172.A.S.RAJI 173.V.VIJAYALAKSHMI 174.C.HARIDASS 175.S.RENGARAJ 176.A.PARTHASARATHY 177.K.SARAVANAN 178.J.CHITHRA 179.A.DHANAM 180.P.SUNDARESAN 181.S.SELVAPANDIAN 182.G.KOPALAN 183.K.S.RAO 184.SUGANTHI.J 185.J.ESTHER GLADY 186.S.SUNDAR 187.A.V.JOSEPH 188.MANJU GOBAN
189.G.DEVIKA 190.NARMADHA 191.J.UMA GOWRI 192.M.ABDULKALAM AZAD 193.C.T.KASILINGAM .. Petitioners Vs.
1. Dr.B.CHANDRAMOHAN, I.A.S., THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI - 1.
2.P.PONNIAH, I.A.S., THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT KANCHEEPURAM.
3.V.K.JEYAKODI, I.A.S., THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION CHEPAUK, CHENNAI - 5.
4. Dr.K.MANIVASAN, I.A.S., THE SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MADRAS - 9.
5.RAMAMURTHY, CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION) P.W.D. CHEPAUK CHENNAI - 5.
6.PRABHAKAR, THASILDAR EARLIER SAIDAPET TALUK CHENNAI - 45 PRESENTLY SHOLINGANALLUR TALUK ... Respondents
Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 15.12.2016 in W.P.No.10738 of 2012 passed by this Court.
For Petitioners ..
Ms.V.Pushpa For Respondents ..
Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh, Addl. Govt. Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.) Challenging the steps that were taken by the Government to evict the petitioners from a water body, the petitioners filed W.P. No.10738 of 2012, questioning the validity of G.O.Ms.No.313 Revenue (Ni.Mu.1) dated 23.05.2005. In the said writ petition, the First Bench, by order dated 15.12.2016 has held as under:
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to persuade us as to how pattas can be given in respect of the land in question in view of the aforesaid impediment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners faced with the aforesaid position states that the petitioners had vacated the original site on a premise that they would be rehabilitated by issuance of patta and if patta cannot be issued in respect of the land in question, then the petitioners may be rehabilitated in some other place.
4. The aforesaid is an aspect which the State Government may examine qua the issue of an alternative site being given to the petitioners and the exercise be completed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.
2.
Pursuant thereto, the Government has passed an order dated 25.07.2017 wherein it is stated that the question of allotting alternative sites to the petitioners was considered and the same has been rejected on the ground that the encroachers are no more available in the place and that apart, the encroachers had earlier encroached upon a water body. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2017, the present contempt petition has been filed. 3.
Heard Ms.V.Pushpa, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
4.
On a perusal of the order dated 15.12.2016 in W.P.No.10738 of 2012, we find that no positive directions have been issued to the respondents for granting alternative accommodation to the petitioners. What has been ordered was to examine the request of the petitioners for grant of alternative accommodation. Now by the order dated 25.07.2017, the request has been examined and rejected. Therefore, the order dated 25.07.2017 cannot be tested in a contempt proceedings. Hence this contempt petition stands closed
with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedies in the manner known to law.
SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) mmi //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
GS/12/04/2022 To
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI - 1.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT KANCHEEPURAM.
3. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION CHEPAUK, CHENNAI - 5.
4. THE SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MADRAS - 9.
5.THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION) P.W.D. CHEPAUK CHENNAI - 5.
6.THE THASILDAR EARLIER SAIDAPET TALUK CHENNAI - 45 PRESENTLY SHOLINGANALLUR TALUK